We can’t prevent any and all negative consequences.
The idea that we somehow can lies at the heart of statism. We can’t have freedom of association, because then some racist assholes would choose not to associate with black people. We can’t have capitalism because then some people might not be able to afford food. We can’t have freedom of speech because then some people might hurt other people’s feelings.
The most common criticism of anarchism is that anarchy can’t guarantee that nothing will ever go wrong, a security that people seem to desperately crave, even though they don’t have it, and even though it’s impossible in a universe that doesn’t seem to care much whether we’re here. “What will you do to prevent murder?” people ask the anarchist, using the anarchist’s inability to definitively prevent murder as a reason for rejecting anarchy.
It’s fallacious, of course. The state doesn’t successfully prevent negative consequences either, no matter how much it tries and interferes in our lives. With all the laws and prisons, with all the destruction of liberty in the modern United States, there remains murder. It’s readily apparent that this isn’t an argument for the state; it’s an excuse for the status quo. “The state doesn’t successfully prevent murder, but anarchy can’t either. So why change?”
The obvious answer is that the state doesn’t simply fail to prevent murder; it is the Primary Murderer. As an institution, the state has racked up a body count that should cause any moral person to do a doubletake; in the 20th century alone, counting only war and advice combatants, states killed more than 120,000,000 people. If there were no states, those people killed by states would not have died. So if we want to reduce murder, the stateless society is clearly the way to go.
Prohibition doesn’t work, and we know this. Everyone knows it until we get to their Pet Issue, at which point they decide arbitrarily that prohibition can work. Abortion is a great example, because outlawing abortion doesn’t stop abortion; it merely chases it to the shadows of the back alley. Prohibition against alcohol didn’t eliminate alcohol; it was merely chased into the shadows of the black market. Prohibition against drugs hasn’t stopped people from doing drugs.
The argument may be that it’s fine, because we’ve substantially reduced the number of people doing these things, even if some people still do them, but this ignores the tremendous negative consequences. Our prisons are filled with non-violent offenders, largely minorities. Drugs are bought and sold in secret, unverified, possibly impure, possibly laced, and possibly lethal. People who can’t find heroin turn to krokodil. These are negative consequences. Our state intervention did not come without a price and arguments can certainly be made that the price was higher than the reward. Great, we kept five people off heroin, and the only side effect was that two people got on krokodil! Only a supremely jaded person can call this a victory.
Of course, this simply leads to more interventions, and more attempts to make up new rules to address the negative side effects of the old rules. Russia made codeine prescription-only to fix the krokodil epidemic caused by heroin being illegal, which simply made heroin easier to get and cheaper than krokodil. And then they’ll come up with some new rule to address the negative side effects of the last rule, and the end result is a clusterfuck of nonsensical laws limiting the behavior of adults.
Don’t think that we’re any different in the United States. There are positive and negative consequences to every action. Getting up early and starting my work day early comes with the positive consequence of earning more money, and with the negative consequence of getting less sleep. There’s always a trade-off, and this is the critical thing that statists attempt to deny.
Sure, outlawing heroin seems like a good idea with positive consequences–right up until someone’s skin rots off because they turned to krokodil. That negative consequence can’t be ignored. Furthermore, any attempt to fix it will come with its own set of consequences. And each time, liberty is restricted. The adults out there who use heroin in the same way that party drinkers use alcohol are caught in the cross fire, their lives destroyed in our Quixotic quest to eliminate drug addicts, and turned into hardened criminals by a prison system that rivals the Roman Gladiatorial Arenas in sheer barbarism.
Prohibition against alcohol probably lowered the number of people who drank. It also created Al Capone and turned Chicago into the gang-infested nightmare that it remains today. It drastically lowered the quality of alcohol, leading to widespread poisoning, and turned previously safe warehouses into guarded camps that regularly saw vicious battles erupting over control of the lucrative black market. It was hardly what anyone would call a victory.
Prohibiting abortion today wouldn’t end it, especially not in an age that has the Tor network (The Dark Web), which would make it easier than ever to find an abortionist. Even Craigslist can’t keep illicit activity off, and people would find abortionists through it. Rather than having the procedure done in a safe and sterile environment, though, we’d be back in the alley with coathangers. We know this, because that’s what happened before abortion was legalized.
It’s true. I can’t promise you that nothing will ever go wrong in an anarcho-capitalist society. In fact, the only thing I can promise you is that things will go wrong. The only thing that really matters is which set of consequences you want. Do you want freedom and the sometimes negative consequences? Do you want free speech even though it means people might say hateful things? Do you want free association even though it means racists might not associate with minorities?
Or do you want statism, for the government to attempt to minimize negative consequences by limiting freedom, and thereby creating a new set of consequences that have to be addressed by limiting freedom more?
We can’t have a utopia. In a universe largely hostile to our existence, imperfect beings can’t have a utopia. The state can’t give us one, and anarchy can’t give us one. Basic algebra tells us, then, that we can reduce the equation by erasing utopia from both sides. When we do this, what are we left with?
Freedom and negative consequences, or tyranny and negative consequences.
For those unfamiliar with the drug, krokodil is a street drug that reached epidemic levels in Russia. Made from simple codeine, which was purchasable over-the-counter, mixed with a bunch of solvents and stuff–like the red phosphorous on match heads and other junk–it became popular for being very cheap to manufacture and very easy to find. Many people who became addicted to heroin came to find that krokodil, which is called “the flesh-eating drug” by people desperate for a headline, was one-tenth the price and a lot easier to find. Reportedly, the high is also better. The only problem? Well, it’s called “the flesh-eating drug” for a reason. Here’s one of those reasons.
While that is a somewhat extreme case, it’s typical of what the drug does. Desomorphine itself–the pharmaceutical name–doesn’t have these effects, but the impure street version does. It causes necrosis, and one’s flesh, muscle, and fat literally begin rotting away. Doctors can tell a krokodil user by the smell alone, because they smell like rotting flesh. It’s seriously, seriously bad stuff.
And, if heroin was legal, none of it would ever have happened.
When I argue against the Drug War and the criminalization of drugs and drug users, I usually get a reply something along the lines of, “So you want people to be able to just buy heroin cheaply and easily?”
Allow me the indulgence of answering that question with a question.
So you want people to invent and use krokodil?
Here in the real world, there are a few basic facts that we simply have to accept, because they have never changed and are never going to change. So let’s get those out of the way.
1. Some people want to be high.
Some people want to be high, some people need to be high, whatever. How we phrase it isn’t terribly important, because it’s an observable fact. Half the country gets high every single morning from caffeine. Probably ten percent of the country gets high every evening from alcohol. Very, very few people go through life completely sober. Someone could make the argument, “But I go through life, and I don’t drink or do any drugs! I get along just fine!” and that’s great, but it’s reckless, irresponsible, and arrogant to demand that other people live the way that you do. I go through life without watching television. Does that mean it would be justification for outlawing television, which likely does more harm to “society” than any drug does? No, of course not. How I live my life has no relevance to how you want to live your life. It’s your life.
2. Outlawing a drug doesn’t eliminate the desire to be high, or to use that drug.
We all know this to be true. If we outlawed caffeine tomorrow, it would do nothing to get rid of all the people who want to drink coffee. When the Federal Government lost its mind and passed Prohibition, outlawing alcohol across the country, it did not eliminate the people who wanted to drink; people still wanted to drink, and people like Al Capone stepped up to provide. We see this happening today with the Drug War. The Great Unspoken Truth about the steady legalization of marijuana is that we are already getting marijuana pretty easily, and that’s how we know it isn’t dangerous and really shouldn’t be illegal. Making marijuana illegal hasn’t stopped people from wanting to smoke it, and it certainly hasn’t made it impossible for people to get it. In fact, when you look at things rationally, it seems the Federal Government’s only real purpose here is to arrest minorities and create criminal gangs.
In Russia, outlawing heroin hasn’t kept people off heroin. In fact, due to its adjacency to the poppy fields of Afghanistan that we “helpfully” restored following our invasion in 2001, Russians have a relatively easy time getting heroin–easier than here in the United States. There are times when it is hard to find, of course, and that’s true of every drug, and price fluctuations hit addicts hardest. So if you have a heroin addict who can’t afford heroin or can’t find it…
3. When people become addicted severely enough, they will do anything to scratch that itch.
One Krokodil special aired a few years ago showed a 13 year old prostitute selling sex so that she could afford krokodil. Prostitution, of course, is especially rampant among hardcore drug users, because an addict will do anything necessary to prevent or end withdrawals. It’s tragic, and it’s a problem that really shouldn’t exist, but it does. Why? Because various drug wars have made heroin hard to find, and therefore more expensive. Basic economics tells us that a good’s price is linked to its demand and supply relationship. If the Federal Government outlawed pink slippers with rainbows on them, it wouldn’t drive up the underground price of pink slippers with rainbows, because there’s no demand for those. But, as we pointed out in #1, there is a demand for drugs, and there always will be. When supply is hindered by government regulations, prices go up. This is, in fact, one of the four basic economic principles:
If Supply decreases while Demand remains the same, the price will go up and equilibrium quantity will go down.
In other words, if the same people want heroin after the police raid that captured 4500 tons of heroin as wanted heroin before the police raid, and if the supply of heroin is now 4500 tons lower than what it was, the price on heroin that is in circulation will go up–if one gram was $10, it might increase to one gram for $25. After years of law enforcement drug raids and various crack downs on drugs, it’s easy to see that screwing up the supply like this while doing nothing about the demand (because, indeed, nothing really can be done to lower demand, see points 1 & 2), heroin will steadily become more expensive. It’s a mathematical certainty that each heroin addict faces: one day, heroin will be too expensive for them to continue using.
When this happens, they will pull out every trick in the book–no pun intended. It’s at this point that 13 year old girls become prostitutes, either to buy the drug for themselves or because their parents force them to do it and give the money to the parent so the addicted parent can buy the drug. Welcome to the real world of drug control. This is the stuff that drug control advocates don’t talk about, because it’s easier for them to ignore it all and complain that heroin is the root of the problem, and that if we just cracked down even more, we might suddenly find the magical solution that allows prohibition to work.
Except it doesn’t, it hasn’t, and it never will.
After nearly four decades of the Drug War, what has been the result? We’ve gotten so used to smoking pot that we’re legalizing it across the country. Within a fifty mile radius, I could find any drug I wanted. Hell, just Saturday night this chick and I took some rolls [ecstasy], and they weren’t very hard to find. They were expensive–$20 for each triple stack white dolphin–but they weren’t hard to find. I think it took four phone calls, and about twenty minutes of driving. I could find coke, crack, heroin, meth, weed, or just about anything else, and I don’t really have any connections. Drugs are easy to find, and the Drug War has been raging for nearly forty years.
But, oh, no, I’m sure you’re right. If we just nail in one more nail, we can somehow make this ramshackle birdhouse hold together. This next nail will be the one that finally repairs it! Definitely!
No, I don’t want people doing heroin. I don’t want them doing meth, crack, or coke, either. But I have no right to stop them. I can educate them of the risk, dependency dangers, and problems, but that’s where my power ends. Just because I think it’s a bad idea to do those doesn’t give me any authority to tell someone else, another thinking, breathing, functioning human being with free will, what they can and cannot do. And even if I was arrogant enough to try to tell them they can’t do heroin, and if I was tyrannical enough to give myself the authority to dictate over them, it wouldn’t do any good if they wanted to do heroin.
I’ve long since given up on trying to get my cats to not shred the back of my recliner. They know that I don’t want them to sharpen their nails on it, and they know I hate it. But what are my options? I’ve made it illegal for them to sharpen their claws on the back of the recliner, and the little bastards keep doing it anyway! It’s almost like making it illegal had no effect on their desire to do it or something! So what are my options? Well, I could arrest them and throw them in a cat carrier/prison for a length of time when they do it. That’s kinda messed up, though, isn’t it? “RAWR, you did something I don’t approve of! Now be kidnapped against your will and imprisoned until I release you!” Yeah, that’s immoral, violent, and psychotic. I could also punish them with violence–kicking them or slapping them. But we’d immediately see the immorality of that, too, and I’d never harm either of my cats–a fact that they know and exploit to their full advantage.
Really, my best option is just to accept that cats are gonna be cats, and they’re gonna do cat things. It seems pretty stupid to punish a cat for being a cat who does cat-like things.
Read the preceding two paragraphs again, but replace “clawing the furniture” with “doing heroin” and replace “cats” with “heroin addict.”
The Rise of Krokodil
So I want you to picture now a woman in her early 20s. She’s thin and kinda ragged looking, though not unkempt or unclean. She’s shaking, cold, sweating, and shivering, and she has just knocked on a door in a bad part of a Russian slum. “I need a hit bad,” she says when her dealer opens the door. “I’ve only got $7, though… That’s all I could get.”
The dealer understands her plight. After all, he guided her down this road. However, he shakes his head. “Cops raided the warehouse last month… $7 won’t get you a hit anymore. Cheapest we have is $15 for one hit.”
“I’ll do you some favors–” the woman begins, but the dealer laughs.
The woman hangs her head, defeated. She’s already contracted syphilis from two years of prostitution, and probably HIV, though she has no way to test for that. And the dealer has no shortage of women who are willing to do “favors” in return for drugs, and most of them are a lot younger, prettier, and less used than the woman on his doorstep. Even if she didn’t have STDs, the dealer wouldn’t take the offer because there are just too many other, better female addicts that he could turn to. But since he’s a drug dealer in a slum, he’s not hurting for money, so he’s got plenty of women lining up to be with him for free anyway.
“Please, you’ve got to help me!” the woman says, and her desperation is obvious. She hasn’t had a hit in more than 24 hours, and she honestly feels like she’s going to die. Every part of her body is revolting against her. Her limbs are on fire, and her brain has only a single thought: “We need to be high. We need to be high. We need to be high.” All she wants now is to make that go away, and she doesn’t really care what it takes.
“I’ve got something else that’s like heroin,” the dealer begins. “It’s cheaper, and the high is even better than heroin, but it is a bit more dangerous.”
“Anything!” the woman says. “I don’t care. How much?”
“You can have two hits for $7.”
And just like that, a new krokodil user is born.
How often does the above hypothetical play out? Quite a lot more often than you’d think. I was only ever addicted to pain killers, and I got out before the problem progressed too badly, but a family member is now boasting about how he’s doing heroin–and anything else he can find, and it’s sad. We all know where that road goes. Women are not the only people who turn to prostitution for drugs. Bob Saget shouting, “I sucked dick for coke!” should remind us all of that. These are all events that happen around us all the time.
No one ever says, “Yeah! I want to get addicted to drugs and start selling my body so I can score more drugs!”
It doesn’t happen that way. It begins as a fun, recreational thing, and it’s something the user has control over. But it’s fun, so the user continues. The user feels control begin to slip away, and the user knows, in the back of their mind, that they have to stop right now, and that, if they don’t, they’ll eventually lose control. But that’s where it stays: “If I don’t stop soon, I’ll lose control.” Two weeks later: “If I don’t stop soon, I’ll lose control.” Two months later: “If I don’t stop soon, I’ll lose control.” Two years later: “Shit. I lost control.”
It’s not fun, and it’s not as much a character defect as it is a fluke of human psychology. Sometimes it’s just hard to see the freight train coming your way, even when you’re looking at it and saying to yourself, “I have to get off the track soon… I have to get off the track soon…”
It’s too late.
If heroin wasn’t so expensive and hard to get, people would never have conceived a street method of making desomorphine, and they wouldn’t be permanently destroying their bodies to chase that particular dragon. Instead, they’d be able to buy pure, quality morphine from a pharmacy, reliably and at a decent price.
Thanks to the drug war, we don’t just have drug addicts. We have drug addicts with rotten flesh consuming the flesh-eating drug.
If heroin was legal, none of it would ever have happened.
So no, I don’t want people doing heroin.
But I’d rather people do heroin safely and openly than cut their life expectancy down to “two or three years at the most” by home-cooking a drug that will literally rot their flesh. And if you think otherwise, I’d suggest you have some serious denial issues to work out about how “effective” you think drug control is and what it actually accomplishes. What it accomplished was people home-cooking krokodil because they couldn’t get heroin cheaply and easily.
It’s time to get away from the moral hypocrisy of saying “This drug is acceptable, but that drug isn’t.” It’s time to stop green checkmarking “these” drugs, like alcohol and caffeine, while red xing “those” drugs, like marijuana and heroin. Americans and Russians need to face krokodil and deal with the actual problem: the drug war and the criminalization of drugs. Because krokodil is 100% a product of the Drug War.
Is this what your tax dollars bought? Is this what Russians’ tax dollars bought?
Now get pissed about it and fix the problem by legalizing all drugs and allowing people to be free.
So I watched Gary Johnson’s livestream from Sacramento on Facebook, and I went into it hoping that I could be persuaded to support Gary Johnson. I hope on an almost constant basis that I can have it shown to me that my issues with Johnson have been blown way out of proportion and that he isn’t really as bad as I think he is. Three days until the election seemed the perfect time to give him one last chance. I just want you to understand the context, because I did want to be convinced. Of course I want to be convinced. The Libertarian Party is practically in love with Gary Johnson–still–and I sincerely doubt that he’ll be going anywhere, and suspect we’ll be dealing with him again in 2020. It would certainly be great if I could at least tolerate this guy.
Of the speakers, Brando Eaton nailed it. He spoke of libertarianism, and it was wonderful. He spoke of the positivity, about how we should all be free to be ourselves, and how we should never hide who we are. I wholeheartedly agree. Brando stated that he is new to libertarianism, and I suspect that, as he explores it further, he will look back on this day and regret that he favored Johnson.
Listening to Gary Johnson speak makes it clear that he is not a great orator. This isn’t inherently a problem; not every politician is going to be a Martin Luther King, Jr. or a Barack Obama. Johnson trips over himself a lot, fumbles around a lot, and hearing him prepare to launch into why our country isn’t a democracy was absolutely painful. He fuddled around for a few seconds, trying to collect his thoughts, and something became very, very clear–inescapably clear.
Gary Johnson sounds like a pot-head. Worse, he sounds like someone who has smoked way too much weed in his life.
I know this is going to make marijuana advocates angry. Look, I’m against the drug war. I think it’s cute that you want to legalize marijuana, but I think you’re fundamentally missing the problem. That marijuana is outlawed is a symptom of the illness, not the illness itself. If you legalize marijuana, you are basically giving someone cough syrup to treat the coughing that is caused by their lung cancer, while ignoring the lung cancer. You could make the argument that before we treat the lung cancer we have to get the coughing under control, but I would point out that if we treat the lung cancer we will, by extension, get the coughing under control.
The drug war is the problem. Given how ubiquitous marijuana is–yes, it will help a lot of people to legalize it and to release non-violent offenders. But cocaine remains illegal. MDMA–one of the best things ever synthesized–remains illegal. We’re still picking and choosing our substances, forcing our morality and standards onto others, and telling people what they can and can’t do. And, again, you could say that repealing prohibition against marijuana is the first step on the road to legalizing all drugs, but I would reply that…
You’re full of shit to make that argument.
No one has made any moves whatsoever to even discuss the eventual legalization of all drugs. Even if we totally and completely legalize marijuana, it will do nothing to end the drug war. Why do I say that? Well, look around. Alcohol has been legalized, and the drug war persists. Taking one drug or another out of the drug war will not end the drug war. Allowing people to drink alcohol has done nothing to help the legalization of marijuana, to further the legalization of heroin and foxy, to pave the way to the eventual legalization of methamphetamine. Taking one drug off the list will do nothing to eliminate the list.
It was dismaying to hear Johnson speak about the legalization of marijuana and to hear the crowd’s loudest roar of the evening. I don’t mean to be harsh here, but… Who cares? If you’re over 25 and you’re still smoking weed regularly, then you need to re-evaluate your life. Look, man, I’ve been there. As I said, I consider MDMA to be the greatest of mankind’s achievements. I’m not exaggerating when I say that. From 18 to 21 or 22, I did a lot of drugs and smoked a lot of weed, though I always avoided blow, crack, meth, and heroin.
But there comes a point when it’s time to put the bong down.
So let’s make this clear–inescapably clear. Being for the legalization of marijuana is not the same thing as being against the drug war. Ron Paul was against the drug war. He stood on a Republican stage and advocated the legalization of heroin in New Hampshire, and he explained that we don’t need the government telling us not to do drugs. This is not in any sense what Gary is doing, or what Gary intends to do. Gary wants to legalize marijuana, not end the drug war.
And this is why people accuse us of being pro-gay, pot-smoking Republicans. It’s what Gary Johnson sounds like.
Then he said that he wanted to end Washington gridlock. What? He may be the first Libertarian I’ve ever heard who wanted Congress to be effective. He wants the government to get stuff done. Again–what? This is directly at odds with the whole of libertarianism. Dude, we want the government to be gridlocked, because that means they aren’t screwing everything up.
He described the election as a 6-lane highway, with Clinton on one side and Trump on the other, and then added that the Johnson/Weld ticket is a middle path. And he’s not wrong. The Johnson/Weld ticket is a middle path. It is fiscally conservative and socially liberal. It does take the small government ideas of the Republicans and put them with the socially liberal ideas of the Democrats. However, if the Republicans actually kept to their small government ideas, then they would also be socially liberal, because “small government ideas” mean they wouldn’t be using big government to force their morality onto others.
See why it’s pot-smoking Republicanism?
I have said in the past that Libertarianism is what would happen if Republicans actually practiced what they preach, and that is more true than ever. If you’re for a small government, then you’re automatically against using big government to force your morality onto people. Republicans, of course, are viewed in the eyes of the masses as for small government. We know this isn’t the case, and that they only want small government when it protects their morality, but most people don’t see it that way. Most people think “Small Government = Republicans.” And it’s true… If Republicans actually believed in small government, then they would be against using the government to force Christian morality onto everyone.
So… How is Gary different from a pot-smoking Republican?
There have been plenty of Republicans who have spread the message of small government, and even many who wanted smaller government than Johnson. I would suggest that Cruz’s government would probably be smaller than Gary Johnson’s, and I know that Castle’s would be–though Castle is a Constitutionalist.
I lost interest when Johnson’s daughter began talking about how hard her father worked. It was depressing. Why weren’t we talking about the stuff that Brando talked about? That is the message of liberty! That is the message that resonates with people. Ron Paul proved that. Instead, we got to hear what was almost certainly a lie about how they wake up at three in the morning and don’t stop until midnight.
Why isn’t the Libertarian Presidential candidate talking about how he dreams of a world where I am free to be me, where you are free to be you, and where no matter what you think of me, no matter what I think of you, we leave each other the hell alone if we don’t want to be friends. I dream of a world where we stop shouting at each other, where we agree to live and let live, where we accept that “I’m not hurting anyone. You’re not hurting anyone.” is all that matters.
That is the essence of libertarianism. You be you and do your thing. I’ll be me and do my thing. If our things overlap, great–let’s work together and build something positive. If they don’t, hey, no biggie, we can agree to disagree, which in itself is a positive thing. I don’t care if you’re a hard worker. I don’t care if you’re lazy. I don’t care if you smoke weed. I don’t care if you are gay. I don’t care if you are trans. I don’t care if you’re straight. I don’t care if you’re white, black, Asian, Hispanic, or anything else.
That’s what freedom is. It’s not about how hard of a worker our nominee is, or how hard he campaigns. It’s about whether or not he wants to stand up and tell everyone, “Hey! Start minding your own business, and leave everyone else alone.” If that is not the Libertarian candidate’s primary message, then something has gone very, very wrong.
Why isn’t that our message? Why is “Trump and Hillary are really bad, aren’t they?” our message?
We have such a powerful, positive, and beautiful message to share–one of freedom, of people laughing and smiling and getting alone, of people leaving each other alone, of liberty, of friendship and cooperation–and our presidential candidate is not saying a word about it. And even when our Vice Presidential candidate isn’t bending over backward to lick Hillary’s butt, he isn’t saying anything about this spectacular message.
Can’t we all just get along?
Yes. Yes, we can. The reason that we can’t is that we have this gigantic state that pits us against one another and gives other people a way to force their standards, views, and opinions onto us. This pisses us off, so we attempt to take the initiative and force our standard, views, and opinions onto them before they can do it to us. We don’t have to do it. The other people are not bad guys. They are not evil tyrants-in-waiting. They are not itching to destroy your freedom or to tyrannize over you. Just leave them be, and they’ll leave you be.
Then we can all relax, be ourselves, and freaking live.
In the 1920s, a bunch of conservative Christians got a wild hair up their asses and decided to outlaw alcohol across the country. The result was widespread disaster. What they learned was that–if people want to do something, then making it illegal for them to do it merely shoves them into the underground, to the Black Market, and away from the watchful, scrutinizing gaze of society. Al Capone and his kind were products of Prohibition, because people still wanted to drink, and sending them into the shadows–where the social constraints of decency, cooperation, and respect didn’t exist–turned them into vicious criminals. In the shadows below society, might equals right, and power is the only thing that matters. As Jack Sparrow said, “The only things that matter are these: what a man can do, and what a man can’t do.” That is the only rule of the underground.
Society rejects that. In fact, the distinction between society and the underground is that we have constraints in place that hold back that mindset: we have rules, written and unwritten, and we decided thousands of years ago that cooperation, mutual agreement, and consent were infinitely better ways of doing things than force, violence, and coercion. When cooperation, mutual agreement, and consent break down, you end up with “societies” identical to the American prison system internals–rule by the strong, where might equals right.
Nothing would win the Drug War against the Mexican Cartels and Colombian Cartels quite as effectively as would legalizing drugs. The Mexican druglords are simply the Al Capones of today. How did we get rid of the Al Capones last time? Did we throw more and more cops at them until they were finally defeated? No–the more cops we threw at them, the less effective the cops were. We got rid of them by repealing Prohibition, by bringing the manufacture and distribution of alcohol back out of the shadows, allowing it to happen beneath the scrutinizing gaze of a society that is built on cooperation, agreement, and consent.
Why am I getting into all of this?
Because we know… We know that outlawing Behavior X when people want to partake in that behavior will not prevent that behavior from happening. It merely shoves it into the underground, where the social constraints don’t exist. If the last 40 years have taught us anything, it should be that it’s impossible to send enough cops and armed forces in to put a stop to the behavior we’ve outlawed–it’s gonna happen. People are gonna do drugs, and it doesn’t matter how much military might we use or how many people we arrest. It’s simply going to happen. Outlawing the behavior does nothing to curb the desire to undertake that behavior.
I’m speaking of hate toward LGBT people. In the modern United States, it’s dangerously close to illegal for conservative Christians to express their hatred of LGBT people. A lot of people would say that this is a good thing, but we have to look beyond the surface, and we have to realize that: Outlawing the behavior does nothing to curb the desire to undertake that behavior.
Making it illegal for them to say that they hate LGBT people, and to act in accordance with that hate (as long as they don’t use force, violence, or coercion, obviously) isn’t going to help, because the hatred remains, and because the desire to express that hatred remains. All you’ve succeeded in doing, when you make it illegal for them to openly express their hatred, is shoved them into the underground, where social mores don’t exist. All you’ve accomplished is pushing them out of the light, where the best they can do is hate speech, and pushed them into the shadows, where the only thing that matters is what a person can do, and what a person can’t do.
These people are going to express their hatred. They can’t help it. Just as people couldn’t help it but drink alcohol, just as people can’t help it but do drugs, and just as people couldn’t help it but get back alley abortions when abortion was illegal, they can’t help it now. Have you learned nothing from human history? The hatred they feel goes nowhere when it is outlawed. Their desire to express it goes nowhere. The only difference is that they have to express it in the shadows, because they aren’t allowed to do so openly.
Instead of speaking out and saying that they hate gay people, instead you have five trucks filled with people pulling into the driveway of a transgender person’s yard. What are you going to do to protect me then, society? Your laws will not protect me when my yard is filled with a bunch of raucous, drunk people with guns, swept up in the mob mentality and desperate to express their hatred in the shadows of the underground–the only place they can express their behavior? Your laws will not save me then. Your words on the Internet will not help me then.
“Call the police” you say? Oh, I can imagine how helpful that would be in a place like this. It’s a pretty good chance that one of the people taking a hammer to my front door is related to the cop who would show up. Even if not, with the average police response time being so high, by the time the police arrive, I’ll already be scattered on the pavement, dragged by chains behind someone’s truck. Your cops won’t save me. Your cops can’t save me.
You can’t plant a cop in my driveway 24/7. And even if you could, what the fuck would that do to help me? When the mob of 50 stormed the jail in Alabama and pulled out those three black men, and then hanged them, there were cops present, and the cops tried to stop the mob. Face it, society. You CANNOT protect me. You couldn’t keep people from drinking alcohol when you made it illegal, you couldn’t keep people from doing drugs when it is illegal, you couldn’t keep people from getting abortions when they were illegal, you couldn’t keep people from being gay when it was illegal, and you can’t keep people from expressing hatred when it is illegal. One by one, you’ve been shown for thousands of years that you cannot eliminate outlawed behavior, and you cannot protect people from the underground forces of human nature. You’ve been shown how outlawing alcohol produced Al Capone, you’ve been shown how outlawing drugs produced the Mexican drug lords, you’ve been shown how outlawing abortions produced back alley abortions. Do I really have to die for you to realize that you can’t outlaw behavior to put a stop to it?
I live in Mississippi; I’m transgender in Mississippi. These people that you talk about–they are distant ideas to you. They are neighbors to me. I buy groceries from them, gas from them, and fix their computers. They surround me. You’re antagonizing these people and shoving them into the underground, away from the watchful eyes of society–an act that poses no risk to you. It won’t be you, in New York and California that these people drag from their home and beat to death with a tire iron.
It will be me.
So I’m not telling you. I’m ordering you:
If you continue pushing them into the underground, then my blood will be on your hands when they come for me. Because we’ve seen it for thousands of years: keep behavior in the open. Allow them to fulfill their desires in the open, and the consequences will be minimal. They won’t take part in violence, because society is watching them. Outlaw their ability to express their hatred, and you do nothing more than ensure that you won’t be there when they do express it.